YouTube More Likely to Direct Election-Fraud Videos to Users Already Skeptical

Critics and pundits on the right like to portray the anger, resentment, and dissatisfaction on the left from the outcome of the vote as claiming trump "stole" the election.

There indeed were occasional headlines screaming trump "stole" the election (IIRC) and there were screams of "not my president", and even a few weirdos here in maine that were convinced Mitch McConnell and Susan Collins had cheated in their respective elections, but by the time of the Muller report, the allegations were much gentler. None of the investigations or impeachments were about "stealing the election", but rather violations, sometimes flagrant and absurd, of campaign finance laws and other points of how you are allowed to campaign for the presidency.

It turned out that a lot of the way the US has worked for 250 years is literally the honor code, and it's not illegal to be elected by being a huge ass or immoral person. Many people in Trump's campaign staff did end up in jail for campaign related crimes. There is also significant circumstantial evidence that Trump and some republicans are more friendly with putin than the average american hopes for, but turns out that is also not a crime.

Meanwhile party republicans, sometimes including trump, have claimed significant, direct manipulation of voting equipment, tallies, and voter rolls. These claims have gone to court and nearly every one was thrown out as baseless, and occasionally downright absurdist. The claims include millions of immigrants being bussed into places to vote, thousands (or more) of "dead" people voting, accusing vote counting volunteers of "fixing" the count against trump, and countless other things.

Compare: "The democrats managed to invent millions of fake votes" with no evidence to "Trump worked directly with the Russian government or individuals in the Russian government to manipulate the voter base, hack the democratic party's mail server, lie heavily to voters, and possibly hack into actual voting machines in a few states". For the latter, we have evidence that russia did in fact hack the DMC's emails, after Trump openly "asked" them to in a campaign speech, russia probably hacked some servers somewhat related to voting operations in some states (but not voting machines directly, probably), russian disinfo campaigns against american voters (though you can't blame trump for that I don't think), trump campaign advertisements that said shitty things to discourage black people from voting (which isn't a crime, hilary made stupid comments), and enough bad actions and connections in his friends and compatriots to get at least 10 people in prison.

It depends - do you feel that Proctor and Gamble are guilty of using psychologcal understanding of dopamine hits to design their Ranch flavored Doritos?

In similar vein, would there be a difference in algorithm that shows you what you want, or determines which videos create the most dopamine hits and juices you in a particular direction?

There may be fancier ways to describe this, but would an algorithm that merely enhances diffusion be the same as an algorithm designed to drive molecules to the most extreme directions?

This doesn't seem very new though. Traditional news was the same way; like if I'm a Democrat, I'm not going to subscribe to the Epoch Times, I'm going to subscribe to the New York Times. Similarly if I'm interested in lgbt issues I'd have subscribed to pink news and not the National Review. People expect the same from algorithms, so maybe now if you're too paranoid about covid YouTube isn't going to instead recommend you a Joe Rogan video it'll recommend you the same content you've been watching

I don't like how this article immediately equates election fraud to misinformation, without piecing together whether it actually was or wasn't. Fraud is a feature of every election, late night shows have run a segment on it every four years I've been alive, and with the sudden change in election rules and mail in ballots it seems reasonable that there could be legitimate fraud.

What would have been more interesting is if they looked into what the content said to see if those users were being fed nonsense or actual news about election fraud. An election official deleting voter logs after receiving a subpoena to hand them over is a real news, but this article lumps it in as misinformation, and what they're being shown would arguably be more interesting then just knowing they're reading something about election fraud

> This is an asinine assertion. The people at Google that work on this are the same as you and I, motivated by precisely the same incentives.

I have on multiple occasions been given the opportunity to make a lot of money by doing the things that people at companies like Google and Apple do. I have also on numerous occasions been given the opportunity to be hired by these companies to work against the interests I've been engaged in in the community. I have watched on in horror while friends of mine--people I thought I knew--chose to work on things that I consider evil and then suddenly start defending what they with the talking points we'd been arguing against, together, for years, proving they were never much more than a mercenary willing to work for whomever had enough money--or at least a fun problem to solve--rather than picking and choosing their opportunities to do good in the world.

> The upper management working at any modern tech company will readily abuse their position as a service provider if it makes them more money. Apple does it with the App Store. Microsoft does it with Windows APIs. Amazon does it with Prime and their shipping networks.

This is irrelevant. Are you seriously trying to say "the people at Google aren't evil because then we'd have to claim the people at Apple and Amazon are also evil"? If any assertion here is "asinine" here I'd claim it is that one :/. Or maybe you somehow think you are trapping me in a hypocrisy? :( if so, maybe you should check who I am before attempting such ;P. I mean, I'm literally currently suing Apple over that App Store monopoly, and the vast majority of my comments on every single media platform for over a decade has called out people--including the people I am talking about in the previous paragraph here--who work at Apple!

> The lack of regulation and blind money-chasing is what allows for evil decisions. There's no minion of Sauron working at Google, plotting ways to make your user experience subtly worse.

There is no such thing as regulation that can regulate away all potential for evil. As for "blind money-chasing": yes, that's evil. And I never claimed that the people at Google were "plotting ways to make [our] user experience subtly worse"... I claimed they are blindly optimizing for money despite knowing the ill effects, and that makes them evil. You often have an opportunity to do good in a day as a human, and often that decision to do good comes at the cost of some money you could have made by being evil... I take it you don't think, unless there is a regulation preventing it, anyone should ever be good, and we should never hold other people to the standard of being good? :(

> Accusing them of that is ridiculous, and I hope you don't look at your coworkers the same way.

The company I work at has an internal culture of calling people out when they get greedy, and we try to screen the people we hire not merely on skills but on viewpoint and ethics. This is sometimes a tense discussion, and we've had somewhat brutal arguments and even people (once even me! ;P) who have quit to make a point about various issues; but, in the end, I have been fairly confident that we have acted in an ethical manner and have frankly left a LOT of money on the table in so doing. So, no: I don't look at my coworkers the same way... if I did, that would probably be a sign that I should quit the company I'm working at as maybe we are doing something evil :(.

So, no: I do not at all believe this is "an asinine assertion".

FWIW, I would be willing to accept a very different argument from the one you are making here, wherein some people simply don't have the privilege of working on things that are good, as they are in a situation where they are living day to day under the boot of a system that requires them to do something, and maybe it is better than someone who feels a bit bad about it but is forced to do it anyway does the job rather than someone else, as it will have some imprint of that belief left... but most of the people I know who do these jobs just don't care: they find doing this kind of work fun and they try to not pay attention to the negative effects while making a ton of money doing but one thing out of myriad they could be doing with their often over-qualified skillsets... they simply find the thought process of taking a pay cut to work on better things beneath them.